In a significant ruling, the High Court of Karnataka declined to entertain a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking to quash construction activity due to lack of representation filed by petitioners before approached authorities.
The writ petition was not entertained and was disposed of due to non-filing of representation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
WRIT PETITION NO.9781 OF 2020 (GM-RES) PIL
BETWEEN:
HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA-577526
S/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/OF KAVALA RAMAPPA EXTN, HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA-577526
S/O SYED ISMAIL SAHRIF, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/OF KHAJI MOHALLA, HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA-577526
S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENCE YADAVA BEEDI, HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA-577526
S/O AMARCHAND, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENCE HOUSING BOARD, HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA-577526
11 . SRI M L NAGARAJA S/O M LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDENCE : SHETTI MURIGENDRAIAH, HOLALKERE TOWN, CHITRADURGA-577526
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ARNAV A BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JEEVAN J.NEERALAGI, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRAITE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY OF THE AMBEDKAR – VALMIKI STADIUM IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
the nature of mandamus. Before seeking a writ of mandamus, the petitioners have not approached the concerned Authorities with their grievances by making a representation. Therefore, in the normal course, a Writ Court will not entertain such a petition.
1 (1974) 2 SCC 630
Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/JUDGE
AHB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 deserves to be entertained without prior representation to concerned authorities.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶52
SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. vs. UNION OF INDIA (1974) 2 SCC 630 at paras 24 and 25 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Suresh
Jagadeesh Nadig
D. Chidananda
Parameshwara
Mohammed Khan
U. Nataraj
Abhay S. Oka
S. Vishwajith Shetty
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
